Car owner gets sued after lube tech kills mechanic with his car at dealership

Puhdantic

Thread starter
Joined
May 3, 2022
Messages
65
Makes sense to me, car was involved in an accident, killed someone, doesnt matter who was driving it.
I think people mistake the words "car owner being sued" as personal. When you own a car and it kills someone the car can not be sued. The person INSURED gets sued.
In case you do not know, if you lend your car, lets say a neighbor, and he kills someone with your car, YOU get sued and your insurance company handles it.

I see nothing wrong with this lawsuit.
1. Car owners car kills someone
2. Attorney sues car owner which I am sure is very upsetting as I am sure the owner is already knowing someone was killed.
3. Car owner insurance company handles it
4. Car owners insurance company pays whatever a jury or judge awards.
5. Car owners insurance company, after paying the damages can go after someone like the auto dealer or anyone else.

This is why you carry insurance.
It is not going to be tossed out of court, its a legitimate claim.
Someone on another place brought up an interesting thought.

The insurance may handle this, but won't this end up increasing the guy's rates? Looks like he still might get shafted one way or the other..
 

dishdude

$50 Site Donor 2022
Joined
Nov 14, 2008
Messages
13,379
Location
Phoenix
Appalling that a dealer would hire someone to work in the service department so unqualified that they don't have a driver's license and so mechanically inept that they don't know how a manual transmission car operates. I feel terrible for the mechanic that lost their life and his family.
 
Joined
Jul 26, 2020
Messages
2,444
Location
FL
Appalling that a dealer would hire someone to work in the service department so unqualified that they don't have a driver's license and so mechanically inept that they don't know how a manual transmission car operates. I feel terrible for the mechanic that lost their life and his family.

Many companies hire non qualified people and feel OTJ training will be adequate.
 
Joined
Mar 4, 2017
Messages
22,589
Location
...
Yes, of course he has a part but the insured vehicle is at fault and the vehicles insurance company will handle it.
The Insurance company can then go after, not the person driving but the dealership whom employed him.
More or less in my previous statement all I was saying is the owner of the vehicle gets sued and the owner of the vehicle insurance company handles it. This is why we carry insurance.


I understand that.

I would think the dealership carries a bond or liability for situations just like this. Customer cars can get damaged in many ways.
 

CKN

Joined
Oct 14, 2014
Messages
8,858
Location
Utah
I understand that.

I would think the dealership carries a bond or liability for situations just like this. Customer cars can get damaged in many ways.
The dealer is fighting so their insurance does not help of the owner of the vehicle. They will not INDEMNIFY the owner of the Jeep.
 
Joined
Nov 29, 2021
Messages
3,646
I will read the article when I get home but if it passed inspection then I'm not really sure how the owner is liable.

Who else touched it? What did they do?
 
Joined
Jul 10, 2012
Messages
7,225
Location
South Carolina
I will read the article when I get home but if it passed inspection then I'm not really sure how the owner is liable.

Who else touched it? What did they do?
It’s more like the vehicle killed somebody and as the owner of the vehicle you are responsible which is why you carry insurance. Now the insurance company will have to deal with it.
Whether or not a car is inspected is meaningless.

Unrelated fun fact about South Carolina there are no vehicle inspections in our state which is why I love this place!

God I used to hate what you had to go through in New York. Motor vehicle and emission system inspections. In New York you even need a trailer registration and license plates for your boat trailer and inspection.

Here in land of the free there are no trailer registrations no trailer plates no trailer inspections and no motor vehicle, no emission inspections of any kind!
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 27, 2012
Messages
13,319
Location
MA
Ahh no the legal system is not “okay” if such a ridiculous lawsuit is even being entertained. There is no culpability on the owner whatsoever PERIOD. Another employee who was incapable of driving said customer’s vehicle is clearly at fault. He/she has many questions to answer to see if the dealership should be held responsible as well. For example, Did the employee notify a supervisor that he couldn’t drive a manual?? The deceased and the vehicle owner are victims here. Obviously not at the same level, life vs property however still a victim. So when a system starts punishing victims when it’s clear there was zero wrong doing on the victim’s part, THERE’S a significant problem.
They're basically throwing everything they can at it and seeing what will stick. It's always been like this, it's much harder to sue in other countries. I remember someone telling me how his limp was because his foot got run over by a car and I asked him if he sued, he laughed and said this was in India and I guess you don't sue there or nobody has any money, he got nothing.

This reminds me of a case where a guy driving a company vehicle stopped to let someone walk in front of him and that guy was hit by a car in the lane next to him. They sued that guy also and the company was on the hook for a lot of money as they had deep pockets and the other guy who actually hit the pedestrian didn't. They claimed that by waiving the guy through, it was safe and therefore the company was liable. But I think as a pedestrian it's always up to you to make sure the next lane doesn't have a car speeding by. Basically the jury felt sympathetic toward the victim and felt fine about handing out other people's money. So now if I stop for a pedestrian, I don't waive them through. Attorneys may just be hoping for a sympathetic jury which could force the insurance companies to settle even if they know there isn't really a case here.
 
Joined
Nov 29, 2021
Messages
3,646
It’s more like the vehicle killed somebody and as the owner of the vehicle you are responsible which is why you carry insurance. Now the insurance company will have to deal with it.
Whether or not a car is inspected is meaningless.

Unrelated fun fact about South Carolina there are no vehicle inspections in our state which is why I love this place!

God I used to hate what you had to go through in New York. Motor vehicle and emission system inspections. In New York you even need a trailer registration and license plates for your boat trailer and inspection.

Here in land of the free there are no trailer registrations no trailer plates no trailer inspections and no motor vehicle, no emission inspections of any kind!

I just fell in love with South Carolina lol.
 
Joined
Jun 26, 2003
Messages
12,428
Location
Illinois
This has to do with Workers Comp laws. It was part of the original law in such a way that if it wasn't included, the law would have never passed. You have to read the entire article to see what's going on.
Ultimately, the car owner won't be liable for the death, in fact he doesn't have the "deep pockets" required for a suit like this. It will be insurance companies fighting it out.
I didn't get that it was about workmans comp, but that it was about the owner of vehicles are responsible through some Michigan legal principle called vicarious liability.

The law is called vicarious liability and means the owner is automatically liable for the negligence of the driver.
It has nothing to do with workman's comp, but that the owner of the vehicle is responsible.

I'd say the law needs an amendment that relieves an owner of vicarious liability if the vehicle is in the hands of a business such as a dealership, repair shop, valet, etc.

I can certainly see vicarious liability if you loan your car to a friend or neighbor or family member. Makes sense. When you place your vehicle in the hands of your dealership, it makes no sense.

But I didn't see this as being a quirk in the WC laws, but rather the vicarious liability statutes in MI.
 
Joined
Jun 19, 2019
Messages
1,802
Location
Appleton, WI
Agree, mostly....in addition to the employee, dealer may have some liability since they were allowing an unlicensed driver to move vehicles.

That will likely not stick as the unlicensed employee was operating the vehicle on private property and not a public roadway. I previously worked at a car dealership in which one of the salesmen got a DUI and lost his license for a few months, the dealership had no problem with him driving vehicles on the lot which was their private property.
 
Joined
Dec 30, 2006
Messages
27,924
Location
Dallas,Tx USA
Dealership is liable. Customer won't even get a single glance from a judge. Attorney trying to sue the customer will probably get firmly disciplined by the judge.
 

BeerCan

$50 Site Donor
Joined
Jan 8, 2007
Messages
2,107
Location
TN
Dealership is liable. Customer won't even get a single glance from a judge. Attorney trying to sue the customer will probably get firmly disciplined by the judge.
The judge is the lowest payed lawyer in the room. Don't be surprised if one let's it continue.
 
Joined
Sep 23, 2008
Messages
10,542
Location
Ontario, Canada
I think the broken part of the law is that employees can't sue their employer?
FOX 2: "You must be suing the dealership?"
"We can't because of a legal standard that is involved," the lawyer said.
That's because the accident happened at work and involved two employees and you can't sue the boss in that situation.
Is that really true in Michigan?
 
Joined
Aug 13, 2004
Messages
1,908
Location
VA
I think the broken part of the law is that employees can't sue their employer?

Is that really true in Michigan?
I didn't try to find the actual law, but here's a quote from one of the articles linked in another thread:

"The attorney also said the dealership cannot be sued because of a legal standard preventing an employee from suing their boss for negligence, which, in this case, would be the hiring of someone who should not have been driving."

So the blame appears to be on the state lawmakers. I guess they know which side their bread is buttered on.
 
Joined
Apr 27, 2012
Messages
13,319
Location
MA
I didn't try to find the actual law, but here's a quote from one of the articles linked in another thread:

"The attorney also said the dealership cannot be sued because of a legal standard preventing an employee from suing their boss for negligence, which, in this case, would be the hiring of someone who should not have been driving."

So the blame appears to be on the state lawmakers. I guess they know which side their bread is buttered on.
That might be workman's compensation. The guy died on the job so you collect from workman's compensation.

 
Top